Enter the Faces of Biology Photo Contest for a chance to win $250 and to have your photo appear on the cover of the journal BioScience.

An experimental study of gender, application quality and reviewer reliability was undertaken via a collaboration between Washington State University and the American Institute of Biological Sciences, using evaluations of mock grant applications.

A recently published mixed methods study from Washington State University and the American Institute of Biological Sciences examined how reviewer sentiment about peer review related to evaluation of theoretical grant applications.

A new publication in Research Integrity and Peer Review from researchers at the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) and University of Washington highlights problems related to proposal rating in grant review and proposes a protocol to ameliorate them.

According to a review of studies by researchers from Washington State University and the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), women researchers received less grant money on average than men. The study found that women's average grant award was about $342,000, while men's average grant award was $659,000.

The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) and Washington State University have published the results from an experiment of grant peer reviewers’ evaluations that suggest proposal risk dominates project assessment.

While numerous studies have described the funding discrepancies faced by scientists at minority-serving institutions (MSIs), there is a relative paucity of information available about MSI-based scientists’ participation in grant review, the process used by research funders to allocate their budgets.

AIBS cares about accessible computing and inclusivity. Users of SCORES who need more accessibility can now more reliably navigate the applications with a screen reader, or using only a keyboard.

AIBS published a study on research funding applicant perceptions of the effectiveness and appropriateness of peer review feedback. The results suggested that only 56–60% of applicants determined the feedback to be appropriate and less than 40% of applicants found the feedback to be very useful in improving future submissions. Some of these perceptions were dependent on race and gender, independent of funding success.

AIBS, in collaboration with the NET ESolutions Corporation, published findings from an analysis of citations of scientific articles which introduced a meta-method for large-scale discovery of scientific communities of practice.

AIBS has been awarded a Standard Grant from the National Science Foundation on the science of peer review entitled: “Reliability, Risk Aversion, and Bias in Grant Peer Review”.